For anyone debating the 300 f/4 IS vs 100-300 f/4 for sports...

So the fall sports season is upon me and with that comes soccer matches and the inevitable question, "Which lens do I use?"; 300 f/4 IS or 100-300 f/4. Well, this season I did a little record keeping and here's what I found:

Avg shots a game:
100-300 =~400
300 f/4 IS = ~ 225

Avg keepers* per game:
100-300 =~43
300 f/4 IS =~21

(*- A keeper for me is more than just an in focus shot and typically my keeper rate is 10-15%, so these numbers aren't unusual.)

Once again I find the 300 prime to be slightly sharper with a slightly higher percentage of in focus shots, but that's where its advantages end. The zoom affords me many more opportunities and renders the photos in a much more pleasing way, especially regarding bg blur and PF.

As it turns out the field that I shoot at most is surrounded by chain link fence and soccer nets. These bg's give the Canon fits in terms of bokeh, while the Sigma has no problems. Even the artificial turf and the pine trees turn into ugly, nervous patterns on a sunny day with the Canon.

Lately my Sigma is seeming (slightly) less sharp than I remember, so I'll be sending it in to get calibrated and using the Canon in the meantime. Of course it could be the advent of a new, higher density sensor camera (7d). But the Sigma is about 5 years old, so a trip into the service department couldn't hurt.

Anyway, for anyone who is considering buying a 300 f/4 IS for sports you really should take a look at the Sigma...

twoshadows wrote in post #10891879
Lately my Sigma is seeming (slightly) less sharp than I remember, so I'll be sending it in to get calibrated and using the Canon in the meantime. Of course it could be the advent of a new, higher density sensor camera (7d). But the Sigma is about 5 years old, so a trip into the service department couldn't hurt.

Just an update: a tweak in MA to the Sigma and it is back to its old self again . Shot a game with it today and am just wowed by the photos.

Here are the ones I sent to the paper:

http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128380817
http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128380820
http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128380821
http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128380822
http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128380823

twoshadows wrote in post #10896668
Just an update: a tweak in MA to the Sigma and it is back to its old self again . Shot a game with it today and am just wowed by the photos.

Here are the ones I sent to the paper:

Nice shots, but I don't know why you would ever doubt it in the first place !

Nice shots!

I'm curious, if you don't mind offering some information....

What do you think of the performance of your 70-200 f2.8L on the Soccer field?

I'm shooting soccer with a 7D, 70-200 f2.8 and, recently, a 1.4TC.

I've been getting dismal results shooting at the lens' widest aperture, f2.8 (f4 with the 1.4 attached). Shots are very soft and I find myself having to use PP (noise reduction and sharpening) to come up with something remotely useable - though they're still not right.

If I shoot at 5.6, results are much more acceptable, but bokeh suffers.

In terms of settings, I'm in AI Servo, Evaluative or Partial Metering, Av and typically run an iso that will allow a minimum of 1/1000 shutter speed. Shutter speeds will sometimes dip below that, but I adjust aperture when I catch it.

I'm "new" enough that I'm still trying to figure out if my problem is in my shooting technique or in my equipment. I shoot off-hand.

I know this is off topic, but appreciate anything you can offer.

S.Wood wrote in post #10896869
Nice shots!

I'm curious, if you don't mind offering some information....

What do you think of the performance of your 70-200 f2.8L on the Soccer field?

I'm shooting soccer with a 7D, 70-200 f2.8 and, recently, a 1.4TC.

I've been getting dismal results shooting at the lens' widest aperture, f2.8 (f4 with the 1.4 attached). Shots are very soft and I find myself having to use PP (noise reduction and sharpening) to come up with something remotely useable - though they're still not right.

If I shoot at 5.6, results are much more acceptable, but bokeh suffers.

In terms of settings, I'm in AI Servo, Evaluative or Partial Metering, Av and typically run an iso that will allow a minimum of 1/1000 shutter speed. Shutter speeds will sometimes dip below that, but I adjust aperture when I catch it.

I'm "new" enough that I'm still trying to figure out if my problem is in my shooting technique or in my equipment. I shoot off-hand.

I know this is off topic, but appreciate anything you can offer.

No problems - happy to lend a hand .

I personally am not happy with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 1.4xTC, not even at f/5.6. Even in good light I find the IQ suffers too much, never mind in bad light. I used this combo for softball for two seasons and was never happy with it.

It sounds like your settings are good, but check the AF sensitivity of your 7D. I find that "fast" is too fast for soccer and usually have it set somewhere between slow and medium. NR is a fact of life with the 7d at iso's above 200, so I don't think that's unusual. But sharpness shouldn't be an issue IF you have a dedicated lens (no TC).

I would get a mono pod and a longer lens.

HTH

twoshadows wrote in post #10897105
No problems - happy to lend a hand .

I personally am not happy with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 1.4xTC, not even at f/5.6. Even in good light I find the IQ suffers too much, never mind in bad light. I used this combo for softball for two seasons and was never happy with it.

It sounds like your settings are good, but check the AF sensitivity of your 7D. I find that "fast" is too fast for soccer and usually have it set somewhere between slow and medium. NR is a fact of life with the 7d at iso's above 200, so I don't think that's unusual. But sharpness shouldn't be an issue IF you have a dedicated lens (no TC).

I would get a mono pod and a longer lens.

HTH

Thanks for the feedback. AF sensitivity is set to medium.

Yes, i'll pick up a mono pod and, perhaps, take a look at that Sigma 100-300.

/Scott

To show what I mean about the 300mm f/4 IS, here are the photos I submitted from yesterday for this morning's edition. The first and fourth show the ugly, nervous bokeh that it can sometimes produce. To be fair, this is on a sunny day whereas the Sigma shots are from an overcast day, but the Sigma handles this situation much better.

http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128386749
http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128386967
http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128386968
http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128386969
http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128386970

I'd be interested in seeing a more controlled comparison of the bokeh between the two.

BenJohnson wrote in post #10898804
I'd be interested in seeing a more controlled comparison of the bokeh between the two.

So would I .

I won't be shooting soccer again 'til Saturday and I have a lot of work over the next two days, BUT I will try to find the time to figure out what would be a good test and implement it.

I've had both and really enjoyed them. Sharpness and contrast on mine were nearly equal, I'd say the 100-300 was a tad sharper and the 300L had better contrast. Thee 300L had faster AF and was much smaller and lighter than the Sigma. Sigma obviously had the greater range, so you could get shots the 300L could not. Under HS night lighting, I think the 300L was a little closer to true aperture of 4 as my shots with the Sigma seemed a little darker, maybe a 1/3 stop.

I've since sold both and have an older 300/2.8 non-is and love it.

packpe89 wrote in post #10898936
I've had both and really enjoyed them. Sharpness and contrast on mine were nearly equal, I'd say the 100-300 was a tad sharper and the 300L had better contrast. Thee 300L had faster AF and was much smaller and lighter than the Sigma. Sigma obviously had the greater range, so you could get shots the 300L could not. Under HS night lighting, I think the 300L was a little closer to true aperture of 4 as my shots with the Sigma seemed a little darker, maybe a 1/3 stop.

I've since sold both and have an older 300/2.8 non-is and love it.

300 f/2.8 =

But don't you miss having a zoom???

Not really, I find I put more thought into positioning, but not having the zoom takes one issue to worry about away. I also shoot with a monopod nearly all the time. I do swith from land scape to portrait quite often, as the action moves nearer.
If i am really trying to capture everything, I'll take my 70-200 on a second body but generally, I am very happy with just the 300.

twoshadows wrote in post #10896668
Just an update: a tweak in MA to the Sigma and it is back to its old self again . Shot a game with it today and am just wowed by the photos.

So are you still thinking of sending it in for service ?

Nah .

twoshadows wrote in post #10896668
Just an update: a tweak in MA to the Sigma and it is back to its old self again . Shot a game with it today and am just wowed by the photos.

Here are the ones I sent to the paper:

http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128380817
http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128380820
http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128380821
http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128380822
http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128380823

What did they charge and how long before you got it back?

Thanks...